Too much questionable impact to the environment there with cables in the water carrying current that creates an electromagnetic field that could potentially kill fish. We must save the environment regardless of the cost - even if it kills us...................

It isn't just the 7,500 acres needed, but they need to be advantageous acres: places with a healthy supply of wind currents. I'm thinking lower manhattan, jersey shore, long island beaches are all potential windmill sights.

Everyone wants clean energy, but energy regulation that is so cost prohibitive because of a convoluted mix of practical and insidiously politial regulations is nuts. When you drive the cost so high that people can't afford to heat their homes, or run their cars - then what? Meanwhile we work to clean the air and much of the rest of the planet could care less.

Meanwhile China builds 20 coal fueled energy plants each year to every one in the US.

I wouldn't consider flood victims in 400K houses as gaming the system, nor would I appreciate the government turning their backs on them.

I am not opposed to helping, but there is a point where people need to take responsibility. If you can afford a three or four hundred thousand dollar mortgage, and you live in a flood zone, you can afford to get content flood replacement insurance (I believe structure insurance would be required by the lender).

Call me crazy, but I think if we continue to have a policy of everyone gets bailed out - prudent risk assessment decisions will fall by the wayside: there are no risks. We need to insist that people learn prior to an endeavor as much as we insist on helping after it fails. We don't do that. We rarely teach people the realities that could happen and what they need to consider to mitigate those. The only mitigating realites they know are the ones that are mandatory. That bothers me.

People never ask what are the consequences; where there are consequences they are now conditioned to believe it is never their fault. I grew up just the opposite: every decision you make has consequences; there's a tuition in life for everything you do; no free lunches. I can still hear my father preaching those things.

I own a very nice home in GA. It is now "under" water. Just a couple of years ago it had some very healthy equity. Maybe I should do what so many others do, just walk away from the mortgage. Sure would make my life easier. Funny thing is I knew purchasing a home is like anything else - it has some inherent risks.

Sorry I am venting Rev....maybe I am just too old for the newer mindset. I was brought up to believe no one owes us a living.

Cost of a grammar school student in catholic school is about 40% the cost of public school. So it is hard to argue the cost is too high. I think the greater problem might be the economy, and the clear distain a growing portion of the population has for church - right or wrong. That distain is a double edged sword: the largest contributors to charities, even those outside their respective organizations, is the church. Churches donate more money, time, effort than any other group in America to tragedies like katrina, Irene, etc. Their reward is often a kick in the teeth and ridicule.

Now this church is making cuts due to monetary reasons, and once again many here ridicule. Some here who are of modest means might keep in mind that when they are aided, blood, money, help, etc, more often than not it was from the goodness of a church. I can't help but laugh at the intolerance I read on here....otherwise it would make on sick.

I thought, according to the article, the schools were going broke due to too much infrastructure and not enought enrollment. Unlike the public system, they simply can't levy additional taxes on the rest of us. They are forced to make dollar and cent decisions.

I am not a fan of Parochial schools, but to deny they serve a valuable service to the community is strikingly similar to other types of phobias: if it's uncomfortable identify the bad stuff, ignore the good stuff and get rid of them based on the bad.

Did you know that most accidents on interstate highways, according to driver's manuals everywhere, is people driving too slow? Not advocating 85 mph, but the they are not nearly the problem as those driving below the speed limit according to many state's stats. I can't tell you how many times I've seen people crusing at 60 - 65 mph in NC, SC where the speed limit is often 70.

NJ is worse because of the traffic....going 60 in the third land when the speed limit is 65 is very dangerous. Going 85 ain't so smart either.

Pretty simple: Two lanes and the right lane is the entrance/exit/cruising lane, and left lane passing lane. Three lanes and the right lane is the entrance/exit, middle cruising, and left passing. At least that was always my understanding.

Watch when you do have a "slow" cruiser in the left lane, they are usually busy chatting on a cell phone and oblivous to what they are doing. Might be the reason people like to give them the friendly one finger, "how ya doing."

I am trying to understand the logic of this. You purchase a home in a flood zone, you insure it with flood insurance, and you have accepted there is a risk. Now the taxpayers are going to bail you out from what? I truly understand the desire of to help, but sooner or later people need to understand that the "government" is you, me, the person down the street, and it is yours, mine, and the persons down the street's money. There is no magical entity that produces money called the government. This enabling bad decisions (those who purchased in a flood zone without flood insurance) seems to have no end. We started by bailing out Wall Street and then watched them give each other big bonuses. Next was GM and Chrysler - that bailout accomplished only one thing: it gave the union members a payoff. Had either or both declared Chapter 11, wouldn't they have restructured, and be where they are today anyway?

We want to put Americans back to work but keep sucking the dollars from those who are working right out of the system....how is the system to get healthy? Political game players on both sides of the aisle have proven over and over, that they could care less about anything other than perpetuating their own self-indulgence: Power, money, greed.

I think part of the problem is newspaper writers are human to a fault. Some are hard pressed to go after a politician whose ideology they share. Investigative reporters who put their personal bias aside, are a shrinking group.